I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I'm a theistic Satanist and I don't understand Atheistic Satanism. Why would you practice a religion towards a god that you don't believe exists? I see that it's a focal point, but why would you choose a god that is traditionally associated with evil, hatred, and eternal torture? I just don't get it. Can someone please explain this one to me?

Satan is not a "God" and has never been claimed to be one outside of theistic Satanism. We identify with Satan as an archetype, a concept, a symbol, not a literal being that exists and gives a fuck about us. Before it was a personified being it was a word. It's all very simple to understand.

"Lucifer" as 'bringer of the light' i.e. the knowledge. He brought knowledge to a world that was basically ignorant. Re-read genesis...it's said, "they are now like the gods; they now understand good from evil"

priot to eating from the tree of life, (light) adam and eve were ignorant of anything but what was told them directly from god. They were not sinful for their eating of the fruit; they were exercising the free will which was granted to them and theoretically they were punished for that.

When the previous poster talked about archetype, he meant that Satan is sort of like a mascot. A Satanist as is described in these forums believes that he is his own god...Believes not in God per se or The Devil per se but that each is a reflection of man at his best and worst (depending on your view of God and Devil). Lucifer literally means " bringer of light" which loosely translates to "bringer of knowledge". and if you study christianity, you will find that it is a religion that not only praises, but encourages ignorance and blind faith without question. The only thing that the garden-of-eden-Satan said was that eating of the fuit would bring truth and understanding like that of the gods...and according to Genesis, god himself agreed when he made his final verdict (22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;)...If eating of the tree was what brought understanding of good and evil, then why were they punished for "doing wrong" when they could not have possibly had a concept of doing wrong in the first place...

Ah...genesis...the first chapter, and the beginning of all the conspiracies against humankind. The bible was written BY men FOR TO repress mankind and to keep the poor in check. It says over and over again that you should be humble and be content with your place in life. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that a benevolent, loving god would want you to live in 1500 europe and be content knowing that you will work 7 days a week, 18 hours a day just to watch your children do the same and never step out of your social caste? Think mideival catholic church and indentured servant here...

now in modern times, Satan has become a mascot for those who choose to question the status quo. You will notice that even if they do not readily identify with Satanism, they are given the label by the masses. Scientists who explain things logically instead of biblically are give the label of heretic or blasphemers or Satanic...Check out the baptist/southern baptists...you will find that most of them say that dinosaurs are a conspiracy. Who refuses to eat of the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil"? only those who would happily remain ignorant of good and evil and therfore live a life in which they serve whomever holds the greatest power over them...

The true humanitarian would question the very definition of good; the very definition of evil, and live according to what he himself defines as such. The Satanism that you will find here will not point you to any new gods. Instead, it will show you that YOU are a god yourself. Man created God because he was not allowed to openly spite or hate or derive pleasure from the suffering of another. That was The Devil's job. But on the obverse, The Devil was the bringer of knowledge and the giver of "light", so how could one shun the one that gives truth and knowledge? That is man himself, even if he doesn't want to take credit for his base emotions and his basic instincts. A Satanist recognizes that he is both God and The Devil and capable of dually good and evil depending on what seems to suit the circumstances. He (the Satanist) claims mastery of his own fate and gives neither credit nor excuse to outside forces...

If you want to stay here, I suggest you develop a strong sense of self-accountability. Because to stay here declares that you have realized that you and you alone are captain of your ship. You and you alone chart your course. In the Christian belief system, one turns the other cheek and allows the powers above and around to dictate his life instead of standing up and declaring his own fate and his own path.

You have to be a characteristacally strong individual to live here. Are you that individual? Are you ready to accept that your decisions are yours and yours alone? Are you ready to take not only the glory, but the possible shame that accompanies each and every one of your decisions? Because that's what you're getting into....

Thanks, there don't seem to be any really good explanations of Atheistic Satanism to be found. That really helped me out. That was the first one I've heard that really described it well and actually made sense. And yes, I've excepted those things. I've been a Theistic Satanist for about a year and a half now. For some reason I didn't really think to go to a forum to ask people before. Thanks again!

I'm a theistic Satanist and I don't understand Atheistic Satanism. Why would you practice a religion towards a god that you don't believe exists? I see that it's a focal point, but why would you choose a god that is traditionally associated with evil, hatred, and eternal torture?

After ceruleansteel her very nice explanation I would like to remark something: You claim you are a theistic satanist who doesn't get "atheistic Satanism" (contradiction on itself since Atheism remains Atheism and not suddenly turns into atheistic buddhism or Satanism or...).You ask me: but why would you choose a god that is traditionally associated with evil, hatred, and eternal torture?if you 1) know we don't believe in a god, 2) you are the theistic one. Let me reverse the question: why do you believe there is such a god associated with "evil, hatred and eternal torture"?

c-i am new to the Satanism community, and w/caution i stepped into this a bit intrigued, but i have never been one to question My choices- they are Mine and My will. thank you for putting it in a sense that I can understand better. Atheistic Satanism is core to Me, I just hadnt realized it. knowledge is power, and power is All.danke-

_________________________.:with eyes wide open i could watch My world evolve:.

Just to crowbar it into any number of craniums, Magus Peter H Gilmore wrote and article called "What, the devil?" published in the book The Satanic Scriptures. The very first line of the article reads "Satanism is not devil worship."

And you are a Devil Worshipper. An Inverted christian.

Not a Satanist in any shape or form.

Best of luck worshipping your imaginary friend with the horns and pitchfork. Sane, rational people have no problems realising that such a figure doesn't exist.

Let me help you out a little because clearly you are a new practitioner. The term "Satanism" did not exist until Anton LaVey invented it around 1966. I covered this subject before, in perfect clarity, in another tiresome post about 'Traditional Satanism':

Quote:

Where in history do you find 'Traditional Satanism'? In nearly 25 years of research, I have never seen any historical reference to Satanism that was (1) not a creation of The Church or (2) uncited historical revisionism by post LaVey authors.

The closest thing I can find to actual worship of 'Satan' as a dark entity are various Latin American and Afro-Caribbean cults. Even these are not 'traditional' religions. Rather, they are an amalgam of aboriginal animism and pantheon combined with the Catholic system of saints and angels.

Where do you people get this 'traditional satanism' from? Cite a source or simply admit it is all made up!

Theists of all stripes are a bit kooky - you people all the more so. How do you in one breath renounce the Bible and all it's teaching but in the next breath pay homage to it's mythos?

_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Where are all the 'theistic satanists' that have stuck with it for a while? The theistic satanists that have held 'theistic Satanism' as a belief structure into adulthood?And why is it you think these animals are few and far between?

The answer is simple. Theism is theism is theism. It is but a slight shift in paradigm, hardly noticeable, between heretical christianity and mainstream christianity. The mythos, as Fist pointed out, is the same. The difference is that heretical christianity/'theistic Satanism' is not an internally coherent or consistent belief system on the same level as it's more mainstream cousins of the abrahamic line.

The reason there are not very many adult 'theistic satanists', or people that have stuck with this way of thinking for a very long time is that people grow up, mature, and eventually move to something with more substance.

It's an easy move, because if you are capable of letting go of rationality to the point of having faith in a cosmic bogeyman, it doesn't matter what he is named. It is an easy move because theists invariably crave acceptance and reassurance to re-enforce their faith. The bible, the clergy, and brick and mortar buildings devoted to their mythos make it more real, more easy to gravitate towards and believe in. They return to the fold as I'm sure the OP will also when he grows up.

Satanism, on the other hand, is THE OPPOSITE. It is the opposer and the adversary of that entire theistic meme. Where all other forms of theism look 'out there' for the answers, for power, and for truth, the Satanist looks inward.

We don't practice a religion towards a god we don't believe in...The "god" we believe in is ourselves, a quick read of the Satanic Bible would answer most of your questions. We're not here to spoon feed information to those that are interested in what we believe, however if you search the site and read old forums you'll find what you're looking for as well.

To sum things up quite briefly, Satan isn't neccessarily always related to all the negative things you mentioned. "Traditional" Satanists believe something very different when it comes to the personification of Satan. Satan is only a focal point in Satanism because of what he really stands for and represents; freedom, vengence, strength, respect, and so on. The character Satan is sometimes viewed as a role model by Satanists, the badass who takes shit from no one, not even god. Remember also that before Satan was personified the word Satan meant opposer, therefore the philosophy of Satanism is a philosophy of those that are opposed to certain things, organized religion being one of them.

Another thing I'd like to add is that Satanism is NOT an atheistic religion, it is an autotheistic religion due to the reason I mentioned earlier (we see ourselves as 'gods'). Don't take that the wrong way either. By gods we don't mean we can walk on water and feed 4,000 people with 2 fish.

Hope that helps.

_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

I'm not saying that I believe he is about evil and torture and stuff, I'm just saying that he traditionally is. Basically, the Christians are the one's who mainly believe in Satan and THEY associate him with that stuff.

Also, you guys need to keep in mind that Satanism existed before the Satanic Bible was written. Ancient peoples worshiped Satanesque gods such as Seth. Also, if you base all of your beliefs on the Satanic Bible you are going against the satanic principle of not conforming. If you take all your beliefs from a book you read then none of it is your own. In essence you don't actually have any beliefs at all.

I'm not saying that I believe he is about evil and torture and stuff, I'm just saying that he traditionally is. Basically, the Christians are the one's who mainly believe in Satan and THEY associate him with that stuff.

Indeed you didn't, but you build your sentences in such a manner I assumed you did.. Matter of coherence you see... think before writing.

Quote:

Also, you guys need to keep in mind that Satanism existed before the Satanic Bible was written. Ancient peoples worshiped Satanesque gods such as Seth. Also, if you base all of your beliefs on the Satanic Bible you are going against the satanic principle of not conforming. If you take all your beliefs from a book you read then none of it is your own. In essence you don't actually have any beliefs at all.

1) MODERN Satanism indeed didn't exist before the SB.. Traditional almost had the same period of birth as Christianity since they invented the necessary tools for the weak-minded (and idiots). 2) Perhaps you didn't notice, but on the front page there actually are links to other books with a "Satanic touch" but are just about mere psychology and/or are descriptions/essay about society and social interactions or philosophy... Following one book doesn't mean you can't have no belief at all.. Every book provides guidelines from the author to make-up a whole new world/dimension where stories take place. --> http://www.the600club.com/topic21578-1.html3) Seth to me isn't linked to Satanism, however to others he just might be. I prefer to keep him under "Egyption mythology".

You better look around a bit more.. most idiotic claims you make here should be erased then..

Also, you guys need to keep in mind that Satanism existed before the Satanic Bible was written. Ancient peoples worshiped Satanesque gods such as Seth.

Seth predates Satan by several thousand years. While Seth may draw parallels to Satan, you cannot call a cult of Seth a Satanic cult.

Quote:

Also, if you base all of your beliefs on the Satanic Bible you are going against the satanic principle of not conforming. If you take all your beliefs from a book you read then none of it is your own. In essence you don't actually have any beliefs at all.

You do not seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that 1) The Satanic Bible is not scripture in the same sense that The Bible is scripture; 2) The Satanic Bible is quite unambiguous, whereas The Bible is shrouded in metaphor (as well as bogged down with inconsistencies). The Satanic Bible can be, for the most part, taken literally, whereas The Bible cannot; and 3) The Satanic Bible is a treatise of philosophy that is centered more around disbelief rather than around belief. Unlike the tenets of Christianity (and, therefore, the inverse thereof), which discourage inquisitiveness and free thought, the Satanic Bible encourages and invites us to question and think for ourselves, even to the point of disagreeing, and by no means to conform. For instance, I do not agree with the nomenclature: Satanism, the Satanic Bible. I understand why it is named as such, as do most of the others on here, because we are truly fucking brilliant. It invites too much confusion and retarded thrill seekers looking for sensationalism where none exists.

Now, are we done playing, children?

Addendum: you do realize that your last post was a one-liner, and is verboten? To answer your question, yes most of us on here are aware of such organizations. Depending on who you ask, the response may or may not be favorable. Usually not.

You know what, I guess I'll leave your misnamed forum that doesn't seem to be about Satanism in general, but a very specific type. I'd suggest changing "community of Satanism..." with "community of LaVeyan Satanism..." to avoid confusion in the future. I will go away and stick with my form of Satanism that was invented before Scientology. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Also, you guys need to keep in mind that Satanism existed before the Satanic Bible was written.

Do you have any proof of this; aside from Christian capaigns of myth making and fear sowing?

Originally Posted By: ShadowsAndVapors

Also, if you base all of your beliefs on the Satanic Bible you are going against the satanic principle of not conforming. If you take all your beliefs from a book you read then none of it is your own. In essence you don't actually have any beliefs at all.

Well first off I don't think anyone here bases all of their belifes off of TSB, secondly the beliefs Satanists hold are ones they had prior to reading TSB. It is not a how-to manual meant to teach you how to become a Satanist. You either are or you aren't.

What about you? What do you base your beliefs on? Can you really call them your beliefs your own? I'm sure that none of your notions of Satan being a literal being are ones you have come up with on your own.

I think they should really come out with a Satanism for Dumbies book that we can advirtise on here when people first make an account, because I've noticed an overwhelming amount of new members coming on here wishing to have every aspect of Satanism explained to them without reading the Satanic Bible or any piece of satanic literature. Maybe a Satanism for Dumbies book would filter out some of these people? Just a thought.

_________________________
-Mike, "The Patron Satanic Saint of the Youth"

Why not explain your own "Theistic Beliefs" in the first place? You put it out there, and then just asked a bunch of questions about "Atheistic Satanism".

As the resident Hall Monitor (sorry) suggested... this is not a place to be "spoon fed" information.

That being said, could you spoon-feed some of us your "version" of "Theistic Satanism"? Dimitri called your bluff - and you didn't show your cards.

Perhaps he wasn't clear? You asked something of the nature of... "why do we identify with an "entity" that personifies "negativity". This, I believe has been made clear. However, your response has been lacking - "Why do you?" And why would you want to "worship" this "evil thing"?

Name some Satanists and Satanic groups that existed before the Church of Satan. Please enlighten us.

There is no "confusion". This would be like me trying to tell you to change your own beliefs to "THEISTIC Satanism" instead of just Satanism. Any Satanist insists that HIS version of Satanism is "true Satanism", so trying to tell everyone else to slap the infamous "LaVeyan" or "Modern" or "Theistic" prefix on the label when talking about their own beliefs, is absolutely retarded.

I'm sure you can find some other forum that isn't as polarized, but expecting us to change our own label or opinions because of some misguided sense of semantics isn't going to work.

I think a large part of the confusion whether Satanism existed before Lavey or not comes from the 'traditional' prefix. In this case traditional does not imply as in pre-existing before Lavey as it implies Satan as traditionally looked upon, that is, as defined in theistic scriptures, lore and documents. It is not because something is constructed as a scapegoat that it necessarily implies there have been groups following or adoring the scapegoat. On the other hand, if there have been, one can be pretty sure they did their best to remain secret. Persecution in those days was a bit more intense than the level some feel they endure today. So it is in this void that the whole controversy about "did it exist or not" is born. Fact is, lack of evidence should imply a "no" as answer. At least for now. But the very fact that most traditional satanists don't care too much about lack of evidence, if, would they worship an entity/deity/whatevery, makes me assume they aren't too bothered about a lack of evidence in historical writing either.

The closest thing there was to 'real' pre-Laveyan Satanism can be found when looking up "La Voisin" and "Black Mass". This trial defined Satanism as interpreted by others to a large degree but I personally do not think it is good evidence for the reality of satanic groups, underground or not. Another movement that was defined as satanic was the 19th century artistic one -Baudelaire, Rops...- but it was nothing more than that, artistic.

As I've stated before, Satanism does have a firm artistic and philosophical tradition.

But "Traditional Satanists" usually self-identify as ascribing to a religious Satanic tradition, which was certainly nonexistent until LaVey's time.

Of course, there's always the "possibility" that there "might" have been a few heretical Christians that sided with Satan, but probably not exclusively in a "religious sense" (ie, some medieval people might have made prayers to Satan and other demons for mundane or malevolent purposes (to bring someone illness, etc), in the same way magicians would use Goetia.) But this is purely hypothetical, and the idea of a person exclusively worshiping Satan is even more ridiculous, and even more so is the idea that this formed the basis of a "religious tradition" that was passed down from ancient times to modernity.

The real question is if it all matters. Sure Trads make up their traditional heritage, not much unlike Rosicrucians or Freemasons. Hell, even Pagans do the same thing, How many neo-druids are there just being so lucky to have that remaining oral tradition making sure they are cut from the right wood. It's a typical religious thing, this urge to be the first or only or true one. God's chosen people; old concept, new packages. Even modern/Laveyan Satanism isn't free of it.

One can ask himself if it would be so bad to be the 2nd version, or maybe the 24th and if it really would make any difference at all.

It's a typical religious thing, this urge to be the first or only or true one. God's chosen people; old concept, new packages. Even modern/Laveyan Satanism isn't free of it.

Religion is, always has been, and always will be a competition, a race. The one(s) to rack up the most "points", or the first one(s) across the finish line, get the golden prize; in this case "eternal paradise." Those left in the dust get some sort of hell. I find this "every-man-for-himself" view ironic (or, perhaps not ironic, but hypocritical) coming from every major religion which teaches about brotherhood and "loving thy neighbor."

Humans need to attach a hierarchy to every aspect of life. Humans in society have a need to feel superior over something or someone, whether it is financial, intellectual, physical, social, racial, or spiritual superiority, and express disdain for those they judge to be inferior. Chalk it up to an evolutionary principle: natural selection/survival of the fittest. Therefore, it is only natural. Animals in the wild (particularly of the male sex) assert dominance in order to survive; once an animal asserts dominance, he has access to the best food and the most/best breeding partners.

The only problem is that religions reject this natural desire for superiority. The Bible preaches humility, where none truly exists in the human animal. If it does it is illusory at best. The Bible also condemns sexual desire, which is a natural biological impulse, designed to propagate the species.

So does it really matter whether you're first, fifth, fiftieth? On the basic human level, apparently it really, really does.

The LaVeyan followers are mostly "traditionalist"... that is they follow this "Satanism" and its "Traditions" very closely. And can quote "Satanic 'scripture'" on demand.

Most Theistic Satanists I've come across - follow scraps and bits of things they've found, and pile it all together, with a hint of "Wicca", and a smathering of "Demonaltry", all the while believing that they are following some "ancient way". Though mostly, it is of their own design, and a "Modern" concept at that.

Sure religion is a competition, as is philosophy but even when making a choice, the fact remains that looking upon choice from a different perspective might shift it from superb to laughable. There is a duality to everything and although that duality should not stop or hinder us in actually making choices, it should be clear the very choice that is made only makes sense to the one actually making the choice, or others making the same choices.

Now while I do understand that in religion there is this human urge to be god's chosen (first, true) because that position does bring in a reward, no matter how illusionary, I find it peculiar that the same urge is continued in an apparently a-religious concept. When on a path where the sole person of interest -as in opposition with a pure individual, which is by definition meaningless- is the I, in how much does it matter what position one has? It is always true and first and yes, even last. Fifth or fiftieth is rather meaningless unless one is competing on a human interactive level where the pay-off is defined by position, but when it comes to a personal self-interactive level, it loses its value. If one is competing with another to increase his value at a self-level, without any other gain, the word fragility comes to mind.

Mind you, it does not imply there should be no competition or dominance. Even when every choice only makes sense at a personal level, one cannot not make those choices when they are aligned with Will and a natural result of those choices and of Will is always it being at the expense of something or someone else. There can be no progress or change without destruction.

PS: I fully agree with Dave that Modern is becoming all too traditional.

true a satanist can use science to slove a problem or answer a quetion but as a theistic satanist i dont understand why choose satan as a symbol instead of something else. I read all the earlier attempts to explain why atheisttic satanists use satan as thier symbol but it still doesnt make much since. Unless you are going for an anarchist approach. Or even an anti-conformist approach in which case you contradict yourself by having a shared title of "Atheistic satanist"

_________________________
you cannot kill what you did not createHOMAGE TO SATAN

Because Satan is (as the christian or any other god(s) ) not real. You can't proof it's existance nor can you proof the contrary. Saying Satan exists is implying god exists, thus showing you are nothing but an inverse Christian.

The symbol satan is much more attractive and of more use then thinking he is real. Saying he is real is wasting wasting energy on trivial things instead of using it for constructive ideas or works. All the good time and energy is being wasted at prayers, hommage and cries in vain for yet ANOTHER invisible person....

I prefer to see him as a mere symbol and take the writings of Laveye into account. Just for the fact that I'm someone who is trying to be constructive and not passive.

Satan is the figurehead of the Satanic religion because there is simply no better summation of its essence. I've experimented with other aesthetic perspectives and deistic frameworks, and in the end I always come back to Satan, since there is no better ideal of "vital existence" than Old Nick.

It doesn't matter whether Satan is a symbol, a deity, a spirit, a force of nature, or what have you. It's the ideas behind the name that count, not metaphysical nitpicking.

Quote:

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.-Eliphas Levi

Re, Dimitri:

To me, Satan is not "merely" a symbol- in fact, by virtue of being a symbol, he is infinitely more dynamic than any God could ever be. For this reason, it is much more effective to think of deities as mankind's creative expressions of ideas. If Satan were a discrete, finite being- Satanism would be just another boring religion like every other in the world.

I am a Atheistic Satanist (I find that Theistic Satanism is generally regarded as devil worship and holds the same Faith as jews or christians which I strongly oppose)

Satan has been used by Christians to symbolize the temptation indulgence and such and desire we naturally feel which they look to oppress. Satan is the dark force of nature. The indifference that there is no good or evil just nature and we are part of nature and so should indulge in whatever desire we have (there are a few exceptions from that meaning we dont indulge in unnatural mental disorder homocide and all that but thats different) Satan represents the accuser, challenger and adversary (as we see of the other religions) When we worship satan we are worship or more of celebrating the natural desires we feel and how nature is and we part of it.If Satan is temptation and temptation is natural therefore Satan is Nature. Thats probably a bit vague but I hope that covers everything. If you read the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey (regardless of whether you agree with it) it covers everything in depth and pretty straight forward and its a good read anyway (quite colourful)

That was a very well thought out and well put point. Many, many props. To add to your point, humans also have to realize that most of the beings we call 'gods' are just latent abilities within ourselves. These currents exist within ourselves and, usually, we have no knowledge of them. The names we give these beings are just a way of connecting. We have the capability to be both 'god' and the 'devil'. After supposedly eating the fruit and gaining the knowledge of good and evil, we also gained the knowledge to discriminate between the two. We can decide to be 'good' or 'evil' as situation and our feelings demand. But these labels are all arbitrary and in truth, mean nothing. Perception is everything.

_________________________
I live to be proved wrong. Help expunge my ignorance.

The basis for my answer is my background in working with so-called "chaos magic", plus my familiarity with The Satanic Bible.

It's less important to define the nature of "god" than it is for each of us to become fully self-actualized, each cognizant of self and individuality, and aware, each of us, of our own strengths and weaknesses.

For those of us who have reached a point at which we may understand what other humans for many thousands of years have meant when they say the word "god", and yet remain secure in our own individuality and self-realized being, the concern of others as to whether "god" (in this case, Satan) does exist as a concrete, non-metaphorical material thing in the universe seems sort of like a little kid asking why the sky is blue--that is, if you really explain it to him, he'll get bored and stop listening after a few sentences, and if you give him the "just because" answer he'll resent you, and possibly begin plotting your downfall based on his perception of stupidity on your part.

My own thoughts about the physical existence of Satan

* Satan does exist--it is as capable of being brought into material manifestation as any other entity, but this proves nothing except that any idea can be made "real" according to the criteria of some.

* Satan does not exist--contrary to popular wishful thinking, Satan does not have a favorite beer, a favorite spot on earth, a favorite type of car. This is because Satan is not human like we are. It has no wants, because it has no physical being. As such, (among other assets) it does not care whether we humans believe in it or not. (NOTE: Other worship will impose some type of "praise and honor" clause on its followers, but not so Satanism, likely one of the reasons I have become a fan of Satanism myself.)

I will add that I often find it advantageous to bring Satan into physical manifestation. That does not mean that it is a "person" like me, but only that I can obtain revelations from my deeper mind when objectifying one of its aspects (in this case, Satan) so that I may in duality converse with said aspect.

This really reads like a platitude..that is..many well placed words skillfully arranged to avoid saying anything at all.

Are you trying to redefine what 'physical' means? To say that 'Satan' can be made to manifest physically is to say he is an actual material being that can be interacted with.

But you go on to say 'Satan' has no physical being, which completely does a 180 degree turn. If he can be made to 'manifest physically' he would necessarily have physical presence. Which is it?

You go on to say that although he is physical, he is also an aspect of your own personality, or deeper mind. This is quite the juxtaposition you have created.

All and all, this is either worthless metaphysical meandering or a very poor attempt at explaining a cogent position. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, pending a more concise summary of whatever it is you are trying to put across here.

LOL! I was thinking pretty much the same thing, Dan. "It is and it isn't."

Kept hearing the old Donovan song THERE IS A MOUNTAIN. "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is."

I don't think she's trying to say that there's an anthropomorphic manifestation, but unless she's trying to describe some allegorical manifestation of "Satan" in one's own psyche, it's just not coming through.

Sorry if my contribution to this old topic is not satisfactory to some. My purpose for belonging to an internet discussion forum is really not to satisfy people, anyway, so....

I will keep in mind that the members here seem to prefer tidy arguments where there's only one "right" answer.

Anything can be brought into physical manifestation--that is, any IDEA which is only an idea can be fleshed out by science or art so that others may also perceive it as "real". For example, an actor may at Easter time take the part of Christ and act out Christ's suffering, with realistic sound effects, etc. That may make the story of Christ's death and resurrection "real" to some, but it is not "really" Jesus up there, right? If I can cause Baphomet to appear and give advice to an acolyte, that will doubtless influence the acolyte as to the "reality" of Baphomet--which is what I want--but whether the apparition is "really" Baphomet is not a concern for me.

What the term "real" actually means, I will admit is also not of much concern to me. I know from particiipation in other internet discussion groups that whether "the devil" or "god" are "real" or not is a subject of keen concern, if not downright anxiety, to many. But to try to explain how something can be real and not real at the same time (i.e., non-dualism) to a person who has those concerns is only a good time every once in awhile, like when it's raining and I can't ride my motorcycle.

There is a term "egregore". If you would like to know more about what I'm talking about without me having to explain it all step-by-step (true, that might be what YOU want if you are really bored, but not necessarily what I want)--then look it up. The word is "egregore". xoxo

Thought forms are an easily understood concept and not unknown to most probably many of those here. Some of us have a little time in the "occult sciences" under our belts and might surprise you.

The problem isn't in our understanding of what you are trying to say, it's in your gobbledegoop way of trying to say it. The rambling might seem esoteric to you, but it's simply hard to wade through and to piece together. So you see, this kind of manipulation of acolytes and those with a need to believe is basic. It's been practiced by the priests of every mystery cult since the the dawn of time, from the Egyptian priests speaking from behind the walls at Abu Simbel to the Oracle of Delphi, all the way up to the common Magic 8 Ball.

In ritual, it's a simple transformative adaptation. Again, something that has been around a hell of a long time. Psychodramatic ritual within the Church of Satan is widely known and understood, and has been used quite effectively when needed.

scarlett, if you think satan does exist, how do you know he doesn't have a favorite beer? and if you think satan is merely an archetype, than why do you say he can be brought into physical manifestation? if you mean to say you're finding satan within yourself, and that idea is manifested in your physical being (although i honestly have no idea if this is what you're trying to say), than isn't satan's favorite beer your favorite beer? personally, i think satan wears spike heels and drinks shirley temples! i'm going to have to go with jake on this one, assuming you're describing psychodramatic ritual. or is it time for that ride in the rain?

it was also said earlier in this thread that LaVey invented the term Satanism, that it hadn't existed before. i'd like to point out that the first written use of the word was by thomas harding in the 1500s. after this, it appears in myriad texts (and contexts), either describing actual "devil worship," or those practicing outside the traditional christian faith, especially outside of catholicism.

i can also think of many historical references (unless by "historical" literature is not included) in which theistic Satanism in some form, however ignorantly, is documented or at the very least imagined. gilles de rais (bluebeard) was accused of Satanism. huysmans, boullan, hawthorne, baudelaire, byron, lautréamont- there are so many examples of people who wrote about "Satanism" to choose from. obviously i'm not referring in this instance to modern Satanism, or any homogenized- or quite frankly, logical- definition thereof. just that people were indeed thinking and writing about it on some level before LaVey. in addition to literal and figurative accounts of theistic Satanism, people have been writing about satan as an allegorical bringer of light, knowledge and veritable champion of free will for centuries. such works always inspire interest in contemporaries, and i find it very hard to believe that theistic satanic groups of some sort (especially as a simplistic inversion of christianity), as well as atheistic intellectual types did not both instigate and uphold these ideas, however secretly.

granted, most of this stuff comes from artistic minds and could have little basis in fact. but as soon as a "deity" arises in myth, you can bet someone will worship it. not being a theistic satanist, i have trouble grasping what or why one might believe literally in these things, and i'm still not clear on this after reading several posts by theistic satanists on this forum. cold comfort, mayhap?

_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

it was also said earlier in this thread that LaVey invented the term Satanism, that it hadn't existed before. i'd like to point out that the first written use of the word was by thomas harding in the 1500s. after this, it appears in myriad texts (and contexts), either describing actual "devil worship," or those practicing outside the traditional christian faith, especially outside of catholicism.

LaVey did not invent the term Satanism. LaVey defined contemporary Satanism. Big difference. There was no organized Satanic "movement" before this codification and those loosely using the term prior to LaVey's emergence were most often "devil worshippers" or what is loosely called "Luciferian," but always with a deference to the idea of an anthropomorphic being (god) or the Christian concept of "god" as the omnipresent and omnipotent being.

i think ceruleansteel posted a great answer to this towards the beginning of the thread. you might want to go back and read it.

now let's be honest- are you a theistic satanist? if so, can you explain your beliefs to THIS idiot? i mean, really explain them, not just say why you're not an atheistic satanist?but something tells me, after reading your posts, that you're just here to push buttons (please do not mistake this with provoking thought).

_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Another thing that makes little sense about the whole 'atheeistik satinism doesnt make senses' argument these christians and reverse christians like to throw around is this;If we really DID work for the dark prince, why we would it be surprising that we would be working at convincing the masses of his non-existence?.

'The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist'

I think all words are wasted on Mr L.L.P. It was pretty obvious half an hour after him setting his first steps here, he was not here to share ideas and opinions. He might think he's a smart chap but I don't think he's the brightest of bulbs out there, probably a bit clouded by embracing the bong too hard and as predictable as the effect of it.

Regarding his signature, I think we maybe should grant his wishes. After all, the weak always need a little push in the back. It was nothing but a matter of time to begin with.

At some levels it is useless to try and find organized Satanism in history, partly because Satanism by definition is limited to Christianity and is a post-Christian reactionary movement or impulse. Also because modern Satanism is atheistic in origin, we have to do a search in other atheistic movements and philosophies through history and preferably also out of the western civilization.

So what we are looking for are philosophies that deny god, deny the supernatural, deny afterlife and put their priorities in ratio as an approach to things and enjoyment of life. As such they are always reactionary and in touch with Satan as a metaphor, even when the figure itself is unknown in their culture.

In India, The Lokayata philosophy comes close. Of course we will not find anything resembling current Satanism 100% and expecting that is a bit ridiculous. Memes and ideas adapt and change in cultures and will always have variations upon a certain theme.

Quote:

We may paraphrase, and logically rearrange the ideas expressed by the Charvakas in simple and contemporary prose:

Happiness is the highest end in life. There is no soul and no life after death. There is no world other than this world. Heaven and liberation from the so-called cycle of birth and death are imaginary ideals. Everyone will inevitably die. No one will be reborn. Therefore, one should make the best of one's life and live happily as long as one lives.

It is irrational to suggest that one should give up pleasures of life because they are mixed with pain. It is just like saying that we should throw away our finest grains because they are covered with husk and dust.

Earth, water, fire and air are the four elements. Consciousness, too, arises from these four elements only; just like intoxicating power arising from mixing together certain ingredients which themselves do not have intoxicating power.

There is no soul apart from body. When we say "I am fat" or "I am lean" attributes like fatness reside only in the body. Phrases like, "my body" are only significant metaphorically.

The hotness of fire and the coolness of water etc. are all natural attributes. Everything behaves according to its own nature and the variety in things comes from nature alone.

The Vedas are not revealed. Their authority should not be accepted. The authors of the Vedas were devoid of intelligence and honesty. Vedic sacrifices, ceremonies for the dead (shraddha), gifts to priests and other related rituals are useless and bear no fruit anywhere. They were created only as a means of livelihood for Brahmin priests.

Indeed, whether an entity such as God or the Devil is "real" or not is an ubiquitious topic all over the internet. In all honesty, there cannot be much added to the subject in any discussion setting that will make everyone stop and go "hmmm.... I never considered that before".

There are a few things that may not have been brought up in any detail in this particular setting, however.

My remarks that something can be "real and not real" at the same time address what I have seen to be the core of the issue. (And I'm always somewhat consterned at how people, regardless of the setting, will take what I say to be antagonistic or threatening--that is never my intention in an internet setting; I have enough enemies in real life that I don't need to go around on the web getting people all pissed off at me, ya know?)

It's belief that is the issue here, not "reality".

If human beings do not believe in one thing, they will believe in another. If I don't know someone very well, or care very much what happens to him or her, I will never challenge his/her beliefs in the least way. (I grew up in a family that fights bitterly about every little thing, so in reality [har!!] have no taste for long-drawn-out arguments where everybody gets all out of sorts and the word "stupid", while perhaps never overtly stated, is implied in almost every sentence uttered.)

It is belief that is the troublesome thing, not "reality". (IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not one of those people who will try to convince anyone that there is no such thing as "reality" by the way, or that the mishaps, luck, events, and obstacles that befall us are "only our imagination", or that things happen to use because "we wanted them to" or any bullshit like that. If a magician learns to walk through a solid obstacle such as a chair or wall, it is not because he has willed away its physical structure, but because he has learned enough about that physical structure to be able to manipulate it to his--very expert--ends.)

Instead of sticking up for this or that point of view about the subjective/objective nature of God or the Devil--or any non-space-occupying entity--I try to ask myself what benefit attaching my beliefs to one or the other will have primarily for me personally and secondarily for those I care about. Will it benefit me to believe in one thing (i.e., that God/the Devil are REAL on the physical plane as well as the metaphysical one, and that they are sort of like people, like me), or the other (that God/the Devil are just IDEAS without objective substance, and that I could travel to the ends of the universe and never hope to meet either one)...?

Or is it perhaps better to withhold belief entirely, and realize that whether I believe in these things' REALITY or not, it will have little effect on my well-being and happiness, either short- or long-term...?

I would rather just be a non-carer where these non-space-occupying beings are concerned. They are real enough if I need them for something, and otherwise I seldom have any pressing need to ponder whether they actually "exist".

One thing to consider is that whether God is ultimately real or not, we have to admit in a pragmatic and self-interested way that others' belief in the reality/non-reality of God can have significant effects on us. The same can be said for Satan. It would not do much good for me to deny unequivocally that either exists, since they CAN have effects on my life. You know: Mr. Big is someone you're never going to meet in "real life", and you have only a sketchy idea of how he lives, and don't even know his real name--but he knows yours, and eventually will send a couple of guys to your house to break your kneecaps because of your gambling debts, right? Even with broken kneecaps you may still be able to convince yourself that Mr. Big does not really exist, since you never saw him, but such a belief will not contribute greatly to your long-term wellbeing (and may actually be a detriment to it), if you see what I'm saying.

As another example: Many people will claim not to "believe in" ghosts--although again, as noted above, it's not a matter of belief/lack of belief, but differing beliefs regarding a thing's objective reality, that is the issue.

However, many of us who study and investigate paranormal occurrences will find that these "ghost" things are often able to move physical objects, such as furniture, doors, and so on. Could it be, therefore, that ghosts are actually "real"? And if this thing that so many people will passionately and vehemently disavow belief in actually is REAL, could it be then that other things--angels, demons, God, Satan, Mercury, Cerridwen, etc.--are also "real"...?

For me it's almost always of more short- and long-term personal benefit not to ponder whether a ghost is/is not real, whether I observe that it can move physical objects or not. My belief, I feel, prevents me from properly evaluating the things I do perceive and see. If the ghost, to the best of my perceptive ability to discern, can move a glass of water on a table, that is what I want to investigate, not sit around blathering about whether "I believe in ghosts" or not (possibly giving him time to realize that there's also a knife sitting on the table next to the glass of water). If I have to get rid of, or radically change, a bunch of belief in order to observe something correctly, then I'm starting off at a great disadvantage.

That's just my take on the thing anyway--people do much better without belief, in the long run. In the above example, I said that if I don't know someone or care about him much, I won't discuss his beliefs with him--well, if I DO care about someone, I will, over time and in a non-confrontational way, attempt to displace his beliefs from whatever they are semi-permanently attached to.

Sure, my friend or family member has a right to whatever he wants to believe! However, I never forget that also have a right to be free of the consequences of others' beliefs that I do not share.

There are always consequences for belief--no beliefs are "harmless". In my opinion, eradicating the tendency to believe in one thing over another is a more beneficial undertaking for the average human than getting rid of or embracing God or the Devil. xoxoxo

One thing to consider is that whether God is ultimately real or not, we have to admit in a pragmatic and self-interested way that others' belief in the reality/non-reality of God can have significant effects on us. The same can be said for Satan.

First of all God and Satan are not real and no amount of belief that they are will ever make it so. Second of all another person's beliefs can only have an effect on you if you let them.

Originally Posted By: Scarlett156

You know: Mr. Big is someone you're never going to meet in "real life", and you have only a sketchy idea of how he lives, and don't even know his real name--but he knows yours, and eventually will send a couple of guys to your house to break your kneecaps because of your gambling debts, right?

What the hell are you on about?!

Originally Posted By: Scarlett156

...many of us who study and investigate paranormal occurrences will find that these "ghost" things are often able to move physical objects, such as furniture, doors, and so on. Could it be, therefore, that ghosts are actually "real"?

I think it is more likely that a better explanation for these "paranormal" occurences exists, but most people would rather see the "evidence" that confirms what they already believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that "it" is true.

Originally Posted By: Scarlett156

And if this thing that so many people will passionately and vehemently disavow belief in actually is REAL, could it be then that other things--angels, demons, God, Satan, Mercury, Cerridwen, etc.--are also "real"...?

If wishes were fishes beggars would eat.

The rest of this post is even more confusing than your reference to Mr. Big. That being the case I will not even attempt to make sense of, dissect, or respond to it.

I suggest re-reading your post before clicking submit and see if it makes sense first. If you thought this made sense, well, i'm "sorry".

I had some problems following your train of thoughts in this reply. I read it a couple of times and still some parts are hard to understand where they are going or what you actually try to say. I'm not sure if it is your writing style and you just let it go when writing; stream of consciousness style. I admit I suffer from a similar disease at times, not that I use stream of consciousness but that I forget that what I am thinking might not be as evident to others, often because I don't include the in-between thoughts leading to some conclusions or opinions. So I try to take some distance from what I wrote, reread it again and try to imagine how others read it. I suggest you try it too, it might eliminate many misunderstandings.

I'll reply to some part, even when it is leading a bit away from atheistic Satanism but I'll do my best to tie it in. I won't get into the ghost subject. Not only because I don't find it very probable but because such an argument, which might go on for ages, has been done before and would completely get this thread off track. Ok, on to belief.

I don't think belief is as much the problem as how those beliefs affect their lives and others. Beliefs can't be eradicated; our whole identity, spiritual views and world view is build upon beliefs and agreements and they will always remain as such because certainty is beyond us. Reality is probabilistic to us and in that, rather hostile toward a concept like truth. The most rational approach is thus to embrace beliefs and agreements that are most probable or if not, that are most suitable. The superiority assumption that is part of Satanism is such a suitable belief that is only probably under certain circumstances. But it does work for some and in that is to be chosen above a more egalitarian perspective. In other cases it however is contra productive and the probabilities are only in favor when the frame of comparison exists out of clubbed baby seals and dead squirrels. In that, they don't feel very inclined to rise above their current self, the competition is not very threatening. But we do not need to get into such people here.

So at some levels the atheistic-theistic Satanism quarrel is futile. If someone thinks Satan exists in reality and he sees him as a role model and executing his wishes consists out of striving for his own excellence and indulging his life to the max, the fact that Satan is real in this case is trivial. I –sadly- do not meet many of those. The same can be said for an atheistic Satanist that embraces him as a symbol or metaphor but at the same time prefers to solve all real life issues by chanting Enochian keys. While his basic world view might be probable, his spiritual view isn't and he should have realized that real life acts are more probable when it comes to active changes than using metaphysical methods. I'm not talking about ritual as emotional purification here mind you.

So yes I partly agree that belief can be chosen not only for probability but also for suitability. But it, at the same time, makes us vulnerable because we do not always make the wisest choices and are easily lead astray by beliefs that might be emotionally fulfilling in short term circumstances but in the long run come at our own expense.

Once infected by a belief, it is pretty hard to let go. Even when it is self-chosen.

Please, before you post again, Miss, consider the definition of the word concise. As has been said, your ADHD style of posting is quite hard to wade through.

With that said, I have managed to pick out one clear thought from that mess, and I truly find it objectionable.

Quote:

There are always consequences for belief--no beliefs are "harmless". In my opinion, eradicating the tendency to believe in one thing over another is a more beneficial undertaking for the average human than getting rid of or embracing God or the Devil. xoxoxo

In fact, any premise can be believed or disbelieved, but that in and of itself certainly does not put all beliefs on an equal epistemological plane. Beliefs encompass everything from the belief that all humans should die at the tip of my knife, to the belief that I am, in fact, typing this post right now. Are these beliefs are equally as potentially dangerous? Of course not.

Beliefs are what we use to separate the wheat from the chafe, they are what forms our worlds and our boundaries. To completely abandon belief is to embrace epistemological egalitarianism. This is of course just so much hot air, because if you really held this position you would have long ago walked off a cliff or gone swimming and not surfaced. I mean, the belief that you need air or the belief that you can't fly are obviously not equal to their counterparts.

The important boundary marker in terms of belief is that of faith. Faith is the proverbial 'no mans zone' at the edge of reasonable existence. That point at which beliefs no longer have a coherent tie to reality. And that is where beliefs in supernatural deities necessarily must exist.

So you see, embracing one belief over another is not only important, but unavoidable. What is important is the criteria for belief.

I'm not entirely sure what chaos magic is, and I'm not too familiar with TSB (working on that one). One thing I do have going for me is that most of my thought is given to existential reality. All I was saying, and you verified, was that these abstract entities we call 'gods' are merely deep rooted abilities and currents within ourselves.

Whatever you want to name it, God, Satan, Thor, Bast, Zeus, whatever. These names are just ritual aids to help get us into contact with our subconcious, where all these abilities are stored. The dogma is what trips people up.

Take radio for instance. There was a man, when it was just debuting, that said that radio had no future. I'm sure there were others who were greatly excited about the prospect of being able to recieve and transmit speech across great distances. This was a dream back in the day. What do we all have in our cars today? A radio. Just because someone says that it's not 'real' or 'feasible' just means that in their experience they haven't found a way to make it real.

(Can't believe I'm giving this example, but, fuck it.)D&D is another good one. When I sit down to a game, I actually gear myself up to see whats happening in this little world I create with my friends. I may not physically experience what happens, for example, getting hit with a broadsword, but I can see and hear it in my mind, and that is no more real or unreal than the chair I'm sitting in.

When you bring Satan into physical manifestation, he may not be standing there with a body all his own, but he's there. In your mind, you know that he's there. No one can validate or reject your experience of this because we weren't there. What is real is completely arbitrary. It depends entirely on your perspective of things.

If someone comes up to me and says he sees little pink elephants with wings, I nod and say okay. I don't see them, but just because you can't see or touch it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Not tryin to flame, but you have no proof other than bold print that god and satan are or aren't real. Neither do I.

Other people's beliefs can affect you, even if you don't want them to. The Inquisition is a perfect example of this. The poor farmers out tending their animals, being happy with their families, and generally just living the good life had no conception that a MAN which they didn't even know existed was about to send people over to where they were and start fucking things up drastically. They had been worshiping in their own way for generations. But these people in power believed that they were heretics and evil, and the beliefs of these people in power radically affected the normal people in ways they couldn't imagine but are appallingly apparent today.

It is a sad fact that people would rather be told that what they know is right in a new way, but we have to get over that as a race(humans). For example, you sound so sure that these entities don't exist, but a wise man said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are millions of species in the brazilian rainforest that are completely unknown to humans. Just cause we don't know about them or don't have them fit into our little box doesn't mean they don't exist. We just don't know. The burden of proof does lie with those trying to prove it, but the inverse is also true. What is your proof these entities don't exist?

If you have a better explanation, I'd like to hear it. A new perspective is always fun. Give me a new way to think.

_________________________
I live to be proved wrong. Help expunge my ignorance.

Whatever you want to name it, God, Satan, Thor, Bast, Zeus, whatever. These names are just ritual aids to help get us into contact with our subconcious, where all these abilities are stored. The dogma is what trips people up.

This is truth on a level most never get to. Kudos.

However,

Quote:

When you bring Satan into physical manifestation, he may not be standing there with a body all his own, but he's there. In your mind, you know that he's there.

Still, the word physical necessarily implies a level of, well, physicality not provided by even the most ardently believed delusion. I wouldn't say choosing this word is necessarily willfully deceptive on the part of the OP(or yourself), but it is misleading all the same.

I would also suggest that someone that someone that believes very strongly in a falsehood does not in fact KNOW anything by virtue of doing so.

Quote:

I don't see them, but just because you can't see or touch it doesn't mean it isn't there.

This is the same reasoning agnostics like to use to justify their cozy little seat on jehovahs fence. In actuality, if you can not see or touch (or otherwise detect something either by human senses or other instrumentation) something, it is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. After all, why favor one unevidenced proposition over any other?

The fact is, the little pink elephants may actually exist, but if they can't be tested for then it doesn't matter.

Other people's beliefs can affect you, even if you don't want them to. The Inquisition is a perfect example of this.

Yes, in the extreme other people's beliefs can affect you. I was referring more to the average joe. If my neighbor wants to believe in god it doesn't really affect me. Now, if they were to come over and try to force me to believe like they and were threating violence I would shoot them.

Originally Posted By: NDawg

a wise man said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I too am familiar with critical thinking. However, it is also said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted By: NDawg

The burden of proof does lie with those trying to prove it, but the inverse is also true. What is your proof these entities don't exist?

Actually the inverse isn't also true. To put the burden on me to prove something I don't believe in doesn't exist is asking me to prove a universal negative.

Of course not. You are juggling with different concepts of god. What you suggest is like when saying you are Napoleon, would it make you really Napoleon or would you end up in an asylum, even when you wear a funny hat and speak French?

The satanic own god should not be confused with assuming satanists really think they are god. That would be a laughable idea in itself. It only implies that you are the controlling force in your life responsible for your own actions and their consequences, and not some imaginary friend out there.

If you call yourself Satan, you would just be a guy calling himself Satan.

If you call yourself Satan, you would just be a guy calling himself Satan.

D.

AND in doing so, you would become laughable or pathetic, two things that are the very antithesis of "satanic." The only thing you could expect is less respect from anyone and scorn from those who would see it as the act of someone ignorant and/or attention seeking.

Indeed. And in times like these, those who make such claims are labeled as Jake described. Our society is much more educated and skeptic than it was, even as recently as the 60s. Aside from the nutters who still push for pro-life (what an oxymoron THAT is) policies, Creationism in schools, and this recent flap over gay marriage, our culture as a whole is very much based in the scientific frame of mind. If it's not there and can't be proven and uploaded to our Blackberry--then fuck it.

I rather like the direction our society is in/headed. It's the crazies (Muslims and Evangelicals) that tend to rise up in opposition that disturb me. All the more reason to defend what rights we have now. Lock and load.

I'm living two to three decades in your future and I can't say I am too pleased with how things are going at a societal level. Culture here is based upon egalitarianism and leftism, almost enforced upon us. Sure, we don't have creationism at school, Jack and Joe can marry and smoke some weed at their party but overall, even with our scientific frame of mind, the worst of 2000 years of Christianity is doing a magnificent job.

But do you think those trends will persist? This leftist streak rampaging through Western countries will have to end at some point. A global catastrophe, another terrorist attack, North Korea finally getting the balls to use a nuke on Seoul or Japan, something will occur that will shift attitudes more towards the right. Just as the right-wing had a stranglehold on US policy for half a dozen years, we saw it do a 180 in the elections last year. People who originally voted for the lefties will get sick of the kind of garbage they elected into office, and once again, the sands will shift to the other side. Palin 2012!

I tend to blame the spread of technology for facilitating the current state we're in, much more so than Christianity. With people able to communicate instantly across the globe (like what we're doing here ), mobilizing taskforces and meetings and discussing issues tends to bring a sense of inclusiveness to the involved parties. Someone whose pet died can get sympathy from people in London, Sydney and Lima. A concept unimaginable 20 years ago.

Culturally though, it takes something much greater than elections to shift the perspectives of entire nations. I think the egalitarianism we see today will come to a head in the next decade, after which a more moderate approach to social policies will be instated. I just don't see it going to back to how it was 50 years ago. Not unless there's a nuke holocaust and technology is wiped out.

No, I think the trend is stopping. It's about time after 60 years of sliding into this. Next week are European elections here and many are worried that the extremists will make it in, especially because most are anti-European to begin with. I will be worried when they don't make it in, not because I am so much in line with their party material but because extremism is what is needed to get rid of egalitarianism.

I don't think a more moderate approach is the solution. Moderate approaches generally lead nowhere, simply because humans rarely are moderate creatures. If Europe wants a future, I do think it has to gather up and start to think more imperial. But that might take a cataclysmic event.

"This is the same reasoning agnostics like to use to justify their cozy little seat on jehovahs fence. In actuality, if you can not see or touch (or otherwise detect something either by human senses or other instrumentation) something, it is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. After all, why favor one unevidenced proposition over any other?

The fact is, the little pink elephants may actually exist, but if they can't be tested for then it doesn't matter."

I'm actually between religions. I got out of christianity, tried to be Atheist, thought about it a while, read a few books, and now, I don't know what the fuck to believe. I figure I'll just go with whatever works for me. I'm very grateful for the e-books here, one I didn't know about, and one I've wanted to read for a few years now.

Maybe we don't have the proper equipment yet to find the little pink elephants. They might not respond to anything that we know about. But then, this is all just speculation, and I'm just talking cross-eyed badger spit based off of disjointed information. So you're right, it doesn't matter.

_________________________
I live to be proved wrong. Help expunge my ignorance.

If you don't know what to believe- implying you don't believe in anything at the moment- that still lumps you in with the Atheist category.

You don't "try" to be an Atheist. It's not a specific lifestyle, doctrine, or system of religious devotion. If you don't believe in a God, then you're an Atheist. If you "don't know" if there's a God, then you're an Atheist too, because you can't believe in a God that you don't know (or feel you know) exists.

Nowadays Atheism is associated with the Dawkins-Hitchens school of "blast organized religion to hell and be extremely loud about it". That's anti-religion, which is associated with- but by no means inherent to- Atheism.

You don't "need" to believe in anything. Years ago when I grew disenchanted with my native Catholic beliefs, I still felt a need to "believe" in something. I toyed with the idea of Theistic Satanism for about a week before I realized it was completely unnecessary - I realized that I simply had no reason to believe in the supernatural, and that Satanic philosophy didn't need any kind of supernatural validation.

Again, great claims require great evidence. Yes, saying "there MIGHT be an invisible pink unicorn flying around in the sky" is technically a logically sound statement, since science is open to all possibilities.... But it still makes you look like an idiot for bringing up the idea in the first place.

Actually I'd say I more believe everything. Well, not quite everything, some things are too rediculous for even my mind to admit the possibility of. (Scientology or mormonism anyone?) I'm more of on a search for a belief system that I feel comfortable with. I'm toying with wicca right now, cause it validates my environmentalism and respect for life, but there are certain things I can't quite reconcile with myself. Just like Atheism. Not to say that any god created the universe, but they may have came into being afterwards. Oh, btw, nice invisible pink unicorn reference. That vid was funny as hell. Like they illustrated though, you can say the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist all you like, but feel pretty stupid when it comes up behind you and impales you through the chest.

_________________________
I live to be proved wrong. Help expunge my ignorance.

you live to be proved wrong? what you clearly need is a girlfriend with sadistic super powers my friend.

believing everything will not, on any level, help you sort out what you really think. if you continue to dabble and "toy" with belief systems that only validate you, you will be unable to have any conviction about who you are or what, if anything, you stand for. you sound agnostic. or unitarian! (snort)....

if you're really interested in environmentalism and respect for life, you might better serve such institutions by becoming vegan or vegetarian, volunteering to clean up your neighborhood or at animal shelters, and taking out your recycling.

_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

I live to be proved wrong because I know that I have some serious misconceptions about a lot of things. If I am proved wrong about something, then I just gained new knowledge. And if one of my core beliefs is called into question and proved wrong, then I have to do a radical restructuring on just about my entire lifestyle. And that's always fun. At least I'm willing to admit it. And you are correct, I do need a girlfriend. Look at what I'm doing right now. It's 11:30 on a friday night and I'm discussing religion on an internet forum.

But, anyways, why would I join a belief system that I don't feel comfortable with or doesn't agree with my own personal beliefs? The way I see it, there are so many options out there and everybody who is apart of them is so convinced that they're right that it really doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what you believe, so long as you're not encroaching on others right to believe what they want. I'm just trying to learn as much as possible on my way through life. Like others on this site said, so far as we know, we only get one life to live, and the only certain thing about the future is uncertainty. I'm just trying to find something that I like and I can stick with. My conviction is that I am me, I know what I view as right and wrong, and if I can't find a religion that links up, (and I know that none of them will perfectly) I may go off and start my own. Besides, most agnostics are way too...wimpy. 'We can't prove that god definitively does or does not exist, so we'll say he does. Just in case.' Screw that.

All religions are both right and wrong at the same time. It's more of a go with what you feel thing. At least I think so.

I've been trying to go vegetarian, but living in a small town like I do, you really don't get many options. Just about the only place that has a true vegetarian option is subway. And I've got a pretty good sized grudge against wallmart.

_________________________
I live to be proved wrong. Help expunge my ignorance.

one "joins" the circus. one doesn't "join" a belief system. you "stick" with a diet, not a belief system. you either believe something or you don't. why wait until someone proves you wrong to eradicate your misconceptions? don't you have a library in your home town? you're online- can't you buy books or something? and get out of your comfort zone! don't allow yourself to stagnate.

"go with what you feel"? that's a classic cop-out. as far as vegetarianism is concerned, i lived in a casino town of less than 500 people last summer, a town where there was no grocery store (i'm betting your town has one, no excuses), and the only four restaurants in town served fried food and pizza. i am vegan. and i lived through the summer, in fact, i ate well. but, i'm hardly going to tell you what to buy. really, you can't be handed everything on a silver platter.

where there is a will, there is a way.

Edited by miriam (06/06/0901:53 AM)

_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

I've been trying to go vegetarian, but living in a small town like I do, you really don't get many options. Just about the only place that has a true vegetarian option is subway. And I've got a pretty good sized grudge against wallmart.

How about your own kitchen you fucking moron? That's the biggest copout I've read of yours yet. I would be a vege, but they just don't cater to me that way where I live, hurrumph, you can leave this site now, every cliche dumb thing you could possibly say has been satifatorily acheived.

Zeph

_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass - It's about learning to dance in the rain.

Instead of working to prove your ideas wrong, why don't you work on building up your own will and survival nature? Putting yourself in touch with the part of you that would slit your neighbors throat if your only nourishment were their blood definitely shakes the bedrock of your personal character.

My suggestion? Grab a pocketknife and a plastic bag and spend a week in the Smokies. Test your convictions to yourself and your ability to actually fight for something. I spent a week in the desert in NM once and even though I practically starved during that week, it was a very enriching experience and taught me a lot about myself, my limits, and even my opinions. Mentally, I grew by years in that week. The reason why everyone is attacking you is because you are obviously green in a way that can barely be defined. Being proved wrong is not the point. Being challenged is the point. If you spend your life skating from one thing to the next and never really being challenged then you are missing the most vital piece of education that the world offers.

And because you skate so easily, you are probably not getting challenged to a point that serves the real purpose of BEING challenged. I suggest a challenge with REAL consequences, because the lessons that you need will not be found in any other place.

One of the core ideals of Satanism is an attitude of active responsibility and accountability. There is also the idea of NOT sitting back and saying, "Oh, I can't do that because they don't readily hand it to me." I am NOT a vegan. But when I vacationed in the middle of the woods with only enough supplies to fit in a small satchel, I became a vegetarian for a week, eating only wild fruits and plants and a few fish that were dumb enough to fall for my blackberry-on-a string ploy.

What you need is not a religion or a philosophy. What you need is life experience. You need your physical limits tested. You need your ability to survive and adapt tested. You need to find your mental strengths and weaknesses and be forced to either adapt or die (well, as close as one can get to that in this world of McDonalds and Walmart).

Nothing that I have ever subjected myself (or my kids, I teach survivalism to them as well) to would hold a candle to - say - the things experienced by a soldier at war or a person struggling in a third world country (I could have walked out of the desert in about five hours and could have been in town and out of the woods in probably one hour), but doing that would never have taught me a thing.

Experience is what brings wisdom and maturity. And it is blatantly obvious that you have very little of either.

Satanism is not about believing in a god that will help you when you fulfill his will, even if it’s an «evil» one. Do not expect to get Satan’s protection in exchange for human or animal sacrifice. Satan, the mystical god, doesn’t exist. He exists as a human. In fact, he exists as thousands of them: the Satanists.

As a Satanist I create an image of «god» and try my best to live up to it. That «god» doesn’t exist, that’s the god that I can become, and it’s one based only on my own logical principals, not society’s unexplained ones. So I act according to my will and intelligence, not fearing a Hell of eternal punishment, or desiring a Heaven of eternal glory, because I know that those places exist only on earth, and their definitions differ from person to person. Greatness is for the living, and when you die you’re remembered for your lifetime achievements. For answers about an afterlife, go talk to the dead.

Yes, we’re the enemies. We live outside the mainstream and accept no religious bullshit principles that can’t be logically explained. We rely on no unknown force to help us achieving our goals, and we oppose to the ones that do. We also have to face the fact that we’re each other’s enemies too: it will come the day that all human gods will rise and their necessities and powers will clash. Only the strong amongst the strong will stand.

_________________________«The unconsidered life is not worth living», Socrates

Good point. I think I'll take you up on that. That may be the most sound advice I've heard in five years. Thanks for lettin' me know. And you have challenged me. Now I have to prove myself to myself. Dammit. Ya broke me down. That really is sound advice. I'm seriously impressed. This should be fun.

_________________________
I live to be proved wrong. Help expunge my ignorance.

In total disregard of everyone else, I read the OP and responded. Sorry if this bumps things off track.

I am an atheistic satanist. Atheism is not, by me, seen as simply denouncing that divinity may or may not exist. I simply agree, for now, that science has yet to prove or disprove it, so I default into the 'no' category. At any time I can feel free to look at the information, re-evaluate and change my mind. Thus is another satanic luxury.

In that respect, I dont belong to the Church of Satan, nor do I take part in any of the ceremony, ritual or pomp that theistic satanists may or may not take part in. Consider me simply a more scientific aspect of your doctrine. I think that, given the circumstances of our positions, we should be able to affirm that the other may, or may not, be correct (or incorrect). Satanic folks should be able to peaceably coexist almost implicitly, given the nature of the beast.. but I am digressing. I apologize.

In that I grant calling myself a satanist without believing in satan would be ridiculous. And I would welcome any jokes at my expense if that were the case. I simply have a different view of what satan is, and what satan does. Satan, as he is depicted in any kind of spiritual, or godly, or angelic or whatever, fashion, is inevitably just a mental manifestation of the dark side (see: Shadow) of the collective unconscious.

Oh, but how can I believe in collective unconscious and shadow, yet denounce satan? Easily. Look around you. Where is your angel? Where is your Pan, your Anubis, your Hel, your green fires of Bael? I see none. I see humanity, ebbing and flowing to some diabolical tune. I see it as my duty to decipher the symphony from the noise. That is not to say that you are absolutely wrong, or that I am absolutely right. It just means I am a little more skeptical, thats all.

Thats how we atheistics, or at least THIS atheistic, "works".

"Come, ye Gilgamesh, and show me the power that humanity had wrought."

_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

In total disregard of everyone else, I read the OP and responded. Sorry if this bumps things off track.

I am an atheistic satanist. Atheism is not, by me, seen as simply denouncing that divinity may or may not exist. I simply agree, for now, that science has yet to prove or disprove it, so I default into the 'no' category. At any time I can feel free to look at the information, re-evaluate and change my mind. Thus is another satanic luxury.{/quote]

That makes you an Atheist. You don't actively believe in God, thus you're an Atheist.

[quote=Ethophobia]In that respect, I dont belong to the Church of Satan, nor do I take part in any of the ceremony, ritual or pomp that theistic satanists may or may not take part in. Consider me simply a more scientific aspect of your doctrine. I think that, given the circumstances of our positions, we should be able to affirm that the other may, or may not, be correct (or incorrect). Satanic folks should be able to peaceably coexist almost implicitly, given the nature of the beast.. but I am digressing. I apologize.

The ceremonial and ritual aspects of Satanism are not theistically driven. They are emotionally driven. It's hedonism, pure and simple.

Originally Posted By: Ethophobia

In that I grant calling myself a satanist without believing in satan would be ridiculous. And I would welcome any jokes at my expense if that were the case. I simply have a different view of what satan is, and what satan does. Satan, as he is depicted in any kind of spiritual, or godly, or angelic or whatever, fashion, is inevitably just a mental manifestation of the dark side (see: Shadow) of the collective unconscious.

Read the Satanic Bible, you might learn something. What you have stated is a very crude variant of what the Satanic Bible teaches. That Satan is a symbol nothing more. Calling yourself a Satanist if you believe in the deity Satan is very much inaccurate, the correct noun to call yourself by would be Idiot. However that said, calling yourself Satanist now would be inaccurate. You need to read more, learn more, at least learn the basic ideals and philosophies. Then come back and you may belong, but not before then.

Originally Posted By: Ethophobia

Oh, but how can I believe in collective unconscious and shadow, yet denounce satan? Easily. Look around you. Where is your angel? Where is your Pan, your Anubis, your Hel, your green fires of Bael? I see none. I see humanity, ebbing and flowing to some diabolical tune. I see it as my duty to decipher the symphony from the noise. That is not to say that you are absolutely wrong, or that I am absolutely right. It just means I am a little more skeptical, thats all.

You're not more sceptical than me. I am a sceptic in everything I do and learn, whilst maintaining an extremist stance. It's difficult to explain, and many people would assume I'm certain of many things, but I never am.

Originally Posted By: Ethophobia

Thats how we atheistics, or at least THIS atheistic, "works".

Atheistics? You mean atheists surely.

You're poorly informed. You're letting yourself in for much ridicule if you carry on making the assumptions you have here. I suggest you lurk more, read more, and learn more before you say something stupid to someone less forgiving.

_________________________If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

I happen to enjoy being a poorly informed idiot that has no exterior knowledge and has obviously never read the TSB or had anything to do with Satanism. In fact, I am a fluff and should be banned as a troll.

In fact, I am glad you brought up some interesting points. All of which I will gladly let you have your way with. Toss me around like a petty little rag-doll and see if I come out with a sense of dignity. That is the kind of thing I live for.

Make no mistake. I read the TSB every other fucking day. I need not even do that in order to know what I am, no matter if it is a crude derision from your "norm" or not. From the looks of things, I am happily outside of your box, dancing merrily along the path. I could explain to you the studying I have done, the researching, the soul searching, but it would not mean a damned thing to you so long as you are trapped within the bubble of what you think is the right way, and what you think is the wrong way. Don't bother telling me I am wrong, you stated your case and failed miserably trying to denounce who I am or what I do.

As far as the ritualistic hedonism goes, I could not care less. I have had my fill of occult pipe dreams and ceremonial degradation and trying to bend the forces at work around me to my will through wearing funky clothing, using some items I call sacred, and freaking people out. My force of will needs no tools of that sort. I am my own god and my will be done.. by me, not the tools and the moment in some fabricated sense of power.

Satan may be a symbol, but it really means nothing. I am empowered not by some external symbol, I am fueled godless. I need no symbol, or any external force at all besides my will to simply be here, in this moment, doing what makes me happy. In making myself happy, I am able to make others happy. And in turn, they move on to do the same. Why? Because I make it that way. Again, not by petty doctrine, or ceremonious hedonism to alight the mood in such a way that I can properly focus my power. My views have to be like yours, Anton LaVey's, or any other self-centered egotist among the 600 Flock in order to work? If thats the case, then to hell with all that noise, I would rather walk in my own error than walk in anyone elses.

Then again, maybe you are right. Let it be known that I am exactly what TornadoCreator says I am.

HA!

It seems there are many here who think in just the same ways those suckers at the pulpit do. "Your way is wrong." "My way is right." "Your just an idiot." Did you even watch critical thinking and open-mindedness? Its on the home page, check it out some time. All y'all. It might do you some good to keep trying to berate people who are not you, but sooner or later you are going to realize what you should have realized long ago..

_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Ok... Etho, you clearly took my last post as more confrontational than it was originally intended.

You believe in a collective conciousness, this alone will get you ridiculed by people. Why? Because you have no evidence by which to assert this belief. You claim to be the ultimate sceptic yet have made a faith based claim, this will get you ridiculed. You are excessive in your assertion of individuality and your knowledge of Satanism and all that's good but you push it too far and it sounds big headed. Also, you don't read the posts here properly, otherwise you'd realise I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was calling theistic "Satanists" idiots but assessing that you're not one of them, re-read, you'll see what I mean.

Now, I've spoken to you in the forum and on the chat, you're an interesting person and seem quite intelligent, but you need to think more before you write like this, you're not winning anything by carrying on in this fashion, you're just exacerbating things.

_________________________If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

All in all, I believe I have made it quite obvious that the ridicule of other people rolls off my back fairly easily. Honestly, it is the pot calling the kettle black. Stupid huddles masses yearning for a scapegoat. I will be a scapegoat, why not? I have been so many other things that scapegoat seems to fit just right anyway. All in all, however, I could give a good god damn less if people make fun of me. I was made fun of all through my life, and my skin has toughened because of it.

I do indeed believe in a collective unconscious, and I have seen many proofs for its existence, both in the lab and in the world. Many others in the psychology field believe the theory as well. When it all boils down, neither you, nor anyone in this forum, nor myself have the tiniest idea about what is really going on in the universe. Again, when you ridicule for beliefs like you just did, the only thing you succeed at is looking like a fucking tool.

Enjoy.

_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Who said I was trying to win anything? There is no win lose when you socially attack me. You did come across as confrontational, and that is why I am coming forward the way I am.

Originally Posted By: TornadoCreator

You believe in a collective conciousness, this alone will get you ridiculed by people.

So, you say I believe in a collective consciousness?

When someone on this forum starts picking on spelling errors it's usually because they can't win the argument, either you have an argument or you don't, but don't fight with my spellchecker it just makes you look silly.

All in all, I believe I have made it quite obvious that the ridicule of other people rolls off my back fairly easily. Honestly, it is the pot calling the kettle black. Stupid huddles masses yearning for a scapegoat. I will be a scapegoat, why not? I have been so many other things that scapegoat seems to fit just right anyway. All in all, however, I could give a good god damn less if people make fun of me. I was made fun of all through my life, and my skin has toughened because of it.

I personally don't like ridicule, if it's your idea of a good time by all means. It looks like my error in this case though so I can hold my hands up and admit when I'm wrong.

Originally Posted By: Ethophobia

I do indeed believe in a collective unconscious, and I have seen many proofs for its existence, both in the lab and in the world. Many others in the psychology field believe the theory as well. When it all boils down, neither you, nor anyone in this forum, nor myself have the tiniest idea about what is really going on in the universe. Again, when you ridicule for beliefs like you just did, the only thing you succeed at is looking like a fucking tool.

Enjoy.

I don't believe it, I will however accept it as a reasonable and supported scientific claim. Believing a scientific claim is stupid. Science changes all the time. You can accept it, assume it's most likely true etc., but you should always be looking for faults because invariably it's going to be wrong and the theory will be refined or disproved in the future. This is the nature of science.

That said, it appears I misread your post. I'll be more careful in the future.

_________________________If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Believing a scientific claim is stupid. Science changes all the time. You can accept it, assume it's most likely true etc., but you should always be looking for faults because invariably it's going to be wrong and the theory will be refined or disproved in the future. This is the nature of science.

It must be a bit un-nerving always worrying you might fall upwards or that your kettle won't boil when sufficient heat is applied. EEP

If you have no beliefs at all how can you even navigate your way around? They have meds for that, you know.

Beliefs are irrational. I accept the theory of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics as being true and assume that they are true, however if given evidence to the contrary I would question them, thus it's not a belief. I assume in my day to day life many things out of convenience but never at any point to I actively believe them to be true.

This is the only way to retain true scepticism, true open-mindedness. The only thing I can accept as a definite fact is that "I am".

I think, therefore I am.

Everything else is a leap of faith, unless you accept that you could be wrong, your perceptions are imperfect, your assumptions are not definitive and everything you "know" could well be a lie. This is scepticism and I embrace it. However for practicality I assume the scientific method works because with what methods I have available it has provided enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable, I thus assume scientific principles are true, until I see evidence to the contrary. Faith I ignore, anything based on faith I assume is false until evidence is provided. That is how I think, the only way I can think.

Now, considering that, don't you feel a little premature with the smarmy comment, or perhaps you think faith is a more sensible stance.

_________________________If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Faith and belief are not the same thing. Faith is belief without evidence. Any conclusion you reach spawns a belief in the truth of the proposition in question. A belief does not have to be faith based.

I can see this is mostly an etymological conflict we are having.

I used to hold the position, as you seem to, that opinions were far more desirable than beliefs. People are generally willing to defend a belief even after it has been logically defeated, while an opinion is more easily replaced by better information, should it arise. Opinions are therefor more conducive to growth than beliefs.

Since that time however I have realized there is no real distinction between a belief and an opinion. On any given issue you either agree or don't, on any proposition you either hold as true or you do not. The rest is really just language games.

Yes exactly. The only reason I choose to not use the word belief when describing myself it to avoid it being taken out of context, even accidentally when people respond to me. 'Believe' has too many meanings and connotations.

_________________________If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

This writing is to demonstrate the differences between Autotheistic Satanism specifically and Atheism. Ultimately, it is to show that those who are committed atheists have impoverished their lives and overlooked certain Self-empowering opportunities by falling into the modern West's false dichotomy of objective vs. subjective reality.

In our culture today there is a large percentage of people who seem to think that things of the mind have little or no potency. They feel that things of the mind have no efficacy in the real or objective world. The mind can be affected, but it cannot affect the world around it. This notion flies in the face of innumerable examples around us everyday. However, deep in their heart, even the most diehard scientific realist most likely doubts the minds impotence.

Basic examples abound to show how the line separating the mind and ìthe world out thereî blurs. In many cases it simply isn't there. An instance of this is provided in the film What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? During an interview the viewer is given the following to consider: it only takes one thought to give a man an erection. Though perhaps crude, it slams the point home. A single thought produces a tangible physical result. Extrapolate this to every conscious movement a person makes and you can see that the mind is very effective in an immediate sense.

Let's take this a step further. The next time you take a walk down the street by your house, as you look at the other houses on your street, consider how each and every one of those buildings started as an idea in someoneís mind. Consider it the next time you draw a picture, write a story, or achieve a goal. Think about it when you buy your next car or go on your next vacation. All of these realities started out as intentions in someoneís mind.

For a further level of abstraction, ask yourself about K-Mart. Does it exist in an objective sense? Does it exist the same way as a rock in your yard exists? Sure, perhaps there's one five minutes from your house, but that building is not K-Mart for the simple fact that it could be a courthouse, a gym, or a school. It is K-Mart because it is accepted to be so by the public; it exists as K-mart because it has been accepted as such by the collective consciousness. K-Mart is realized only as a collection of legal contracts, which themselves only gain validity in the consciousness of people. But look at how institutions like K-Mart can affect us in the real world. The same principle applies to law and economies. They exist because we make them so.

The concept finds its most fundamental support in quantum mechanics. Research superfluidity. It is the greatest empirical verification of superposition, though it is less well known than the double-slit experiment. It gives great credence to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Couple this with the Special and General theories of relativity and the Bohmian concepts of the implicit and explicit orders and you can begin to see just how important the consciousness of the individual is; you will see that at a fundamental level consciousness is a primary ingredient and creator of reality.

This brings us to the concept of symbolism. More precisely it brings us to the power of symbolism. K-Mart exists more or less as a concrete symbol of the collective consciousness. Its reality is established in the mind so deeply that it is viewed as a physical, objective reality. Just as some symbols are so powerful that they have made themselves realities without us even knowing it, other symbols can be adopted and then brought to that same level of objective reality.

Within the Autotheistic religion of Satanism, Satan exists as an icon for the purpose of emulation. He is a symbol the practitioner seeks to realize physically within himself. More specifically, He is a symbol of an individuals fullest potential. So, to put it simplistically, the Satanist seeks ultimately to realize his full potential within himself. To become a God to become Satan is to achieve that realization. The symbols of Satan and Godhood are synonyms for potential. The thing is that these symbols can become actualized through the individual. They can become reality. Thus they cease to be ìmere symbolsî but valid metaphysical terms with the same full-blooded reality of a painting or a house.

The icon of Satan is important in a way that the Atheist can never appreciate. This striving to embody a symbol has more emotional driving force and a sense of commitment more satisfying than the mere pursuit of pleasure or success can ever hope to bring. More to the point, the goal of Autotheism is more real than the ideals of Atheism. Atheism is just a metaphysical stance whereas Autotheism is a metaphysical ideal that can be turned into the same concrete physical reality as your local grocery store. All it takes is commitment and courage.

I agreed with your first two paragraphs, but then I was disappointed to see you get hung up on the "What the bleep do we know?" crap.

Thoughts do not affect the external world, subatomic or otherwise. If you are referring to certain counterintuitive results in quantum mechanics, this is a matter of experimental design, and the way experimental apparatus necessarily need to interact with their subject matter when studying processes on the quantum scale. The same outcomes would be yielded by an automated experiment which sends its outcomes for analysis to a statistics program on a computer without any human ever finding out what happened. It has nothing to do with consciousness or some act of observation.

I see you also refer to David Bohm and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the same breath. In fact, the work for which Bohm is best known, eg the implicit order stuff, is at odds with the C.I., and I believe that modern physicists have concluded that Bohm's hidden variables theory is also fundamentally flawed. I did like his early textbook Quantum Theory, but he hadn't decided to make his wishy-washy mysticism so public at that point.

Anyone who is so enamoured of the authority of science that they feel the need to use science to justify their every passing fantasy about superpowers and imaginary friends would do themselves a favour if they actually learned what it is of which they speak. "When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there."

Or you could just grow a set, and claim to have the power to affect your reality simply because that is what gods do, when gods have no need for sycophancy to methods that they obviously don't respect.

They do, for every action you make a thought is needed. Think about this: You see a nice lady passing, you are getting aware of something. How so? You are hungry and start making food. How so? You are sleepy and go to bed. How so?

I could go on giving stupid examples but one thing is certain: every action you are doing and going to make is the result of a "thought". Some actions in your body seem to be controlled thoughtless, but at a certain point you can come to the conclusion it is also steered by the brain for "safety issues" only.

They do, for every action you make a thought is needed. Think about this: You see a nice lady passing, you are getting aware of something. How so? You are hungry and start making food. How so? You are sleepy and go to bed. How so?

You haven't mentioned much to do with thought here. These are all physiological responses.

Quote:

I could go on giving stupid examples but one thing is certain: every action you are doing and going to make is the result of a "thought".

I believe the quote you provided from my previous post contains a qualifier, in that I refered specifically to effects on the external world. The simulations generated by my brain which I call "my thoughts" do have feedback effects on the flesh, it is true. Purveyors of "What the bleep do we know?", "The Undivided Universe", and "The Holographic Universe" would have us believe that, ergo, we can win the lotto by wishing on a star.

You haven't mentioned much to do with thought here. These are all physiological responses.

Indeed physical responses to an internal/external stimilus and being put into "reality" after thinking (having the idea/thought) on how you should react.

More clear now?

Quote:

Purveyors of "What the bleep do we know?", "The Undivided Universe", and "The Holographic Universe" would have us believe that, ergo, we can win the lotto by wishing on a star.

Can you proof it doesn't... The deeper meaning of these things you mention is partly that every human subject has a subjective mind. It wants to believe what it wants to believe. I can indeed wish to win the lottery and after 500 wishes finally win it. I can say I won it by wishing it never what others are trying to tell me that it was a sheer "coincidence". Thoughts are subjective and everyone acts according to it. The total sum forms reality. Reality is the sum of all subjective interpretations who interact with each other and finally form the total view.

I agreed with your first two paragraphs, but then I was disappointed to see you get hung up on the "What the bleep do we know?" crap.

Thoughts do not affect the external world, subatomic or otherwise. If you are referring to certain counterintuitive results in quantum mechanics, this is a matter of experimental design, and the way experimental apparatus necessarily need to interact with their subject matter when studying processes on the quantum scale. The same outcomes would be yielded by an automated experiment which sends its outcomes for analysis to a statistics program on a computer without any human ever finding out what happened. It has nothing to do with consciousness or some act of observation.

I see you also refer to David Bohm and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the same breath. In fact, the work for which Bohm is best known, eg the implicit order stuff, is at odds with the C.I., and I believe that modern physicists have concluded that Bohm's hidden variables theory is also fundamentally flawed. I did like his early textbook Quantum Theory, but he hadn't decided to make his wishy-washy mysticism so public at that point.

Anyone who is so enamoured of the authority of science that they feel the need to use science to justify their every passing fantasy about superpowers and imaginary friends would do themselves a favour if they actually learned what it is of which they speak. "When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there."

Or you could just grow a set, and claim to have the power to affect your reality simply because that is what gods do, when gods have no need for sycophancy to methods that they obviously don't respect.

I was impressed with your reply until you so eloquently questioned the existence of my testicles. Honestly, it was unnecessary and paints you as a sycophant yourself by trying to bait me with insults. It's refreshing to see a newbie with a brain here, but you discredit yourself with the machismo posturing and blatant bait for attention. Conduct yourself as a gentleman, or join the rest of the flotsam that get ignored on a daily basis here.

I was impressed with your reply until you so eloquently questioned the existence of my testicles. Honestly, it was unnecessary and paints you as a sycophant yourself by trying to bait me with insults. It's refreshing to see a newbie with a brain here, but you discredit yourself with the machismo posturing and blatant bait for attention. Conduct yourself as a gentleman, or join the rest of the flotsam that get ignored on a daily basis here.

I should also like to note that the primary goal of the "What the Bleep" series' usage of pseudoscience was not to show the potency of human symbolism- as would be the case with Satanism- but rather to merely give vague and watery "evidence" in support of ridiculous things like ESP, magical thinking, ghosts, goblins, and all other such invisible pink unicorns.

Yet even with the most bullshit-drenched varieties of quantum-physical-quasi-mysticism that have arisen as of late, there are none that can accurately define "K-Mart" as a distinct physical entity-- other than the hard physical fact that it is a hunk of bricks, mortar, and cement, with a hive of mindless consumers scuttling about within it.

Octavius stated that, The icon of Satan is important in a way that the Atheist can never appreciate. I cannot disagree more. Atheism is merely the disbelief in an external god-- a tenet that is the foundation of Satanism itself.

I would say that the so-called "hard" atheists (insert erection joke here) represent a collection of the exclusively artless population that usually find their way into scientific or engineering professions- for the sake of differentiation, I will label them "the artless". The artless have no terrible interest for the literary, symbolic, or religions manifestations of humanity. Yet the Satanist- even though he is likewise an Atheist- has an interest in art, literature, symbolism, and religion- nearly to the point of obsession. Therefore, those with an appreciation for the "right side of the brain" are more suited to recognize the meaning and potency of symbolism- in this case Satan. Yet- as the grand point of my long rabble, resulting from staying up too late, is- it is not hindered by or in any fashion contradictory to- Atheism.

I think the icon of satan couldnt really be appreciated by a mereAtheist (as in the labelled Atheist). we are atheists but we have a satanic religion behind it that gives form to our beliefs. Many atheists I know think the symbolism is stupid and then onto this philosophy being stupid.

I think The icon of Satan is important in a way that the Atheist can never appreciate isnt implying that its contradictory or anything just that those who call themselves atheists and nothing more dont appreciate 'Satan' as we do.

There is such thing as "we" in Satanism. To be a Satanist you have to find yourself mirrored in TSB. If you find yourself mirrored in this book and adopt the title "Satanist" you are allying yourself with a group of people that also call themselves "Satanists". There is common ground that is shared by all "Satanists", thus proving that there is a "we" in Satanism. Just because you read, "The Myth Of The Satanic Community" doesn't mean it's true. Sure we're staunch individualists, but you still classify yourself as a "Satanist". If there is no "we" you might as well call yourself a Morganist. But then all Morgans that called themselves Morganists would also be apart of your little group. It's really okay to be a part of a group. We are social animals. It's okay, really

Satanism can either have the now un-PC title religion or philosophy. The more PC america gets the less likely it will be to call Satanists a religion, even though in many respects it still is.

Finding a relevance in the SB means indeed you are related to a group of people who follow the same principle of life. And there it simply ends, the "we" changes to "I". Satanism is individuality in mind and actions. "We are", "we say",.. doesn't exist. Every human being has got a mind of it's own and fills in or interpretes the SB a bit different then it's fellow compagnons.

Proof? I differ from views about art, music, and generally other topics and moral lines from other members who consider themselves Satanists.

I understand Morgan and Dimitri's reaction because I am like them. I don't like people speaking for me and simply put Satanism is all about the "I". Never use "we" use "I" because you can't speak for someone else, whether you are involved in the same philosophical category or not. What I don't get is why people are concerned with labels. Atheistic Satanism, Traditional, luciferianism, etc. People need to stop with the ists and isms. Just be yourself, don't worry about labels. When you label something you are putting it into a box, don't get trapped in the box. Be nameless, just be, it really is quite simple. Be everything, be nothing, just be.

Im sorry I assumed you were atheists then. Despite that, there is a we in Satanism. Church of Satan is a collective of satanists, this forum is madeup predominately of satanists. And since satanists are atheistic then 'we are atheists'. You just want to get picky with everything, fine.

P.52- The Satanic religion has not, etc.

P.50- Humanism is not a religion. No ceremony or dogma. Satanism has both ceremony and dogma.

So Satanism is a religion, though usually referred to as a philosophical religion due it its focus being more on philosophy plus dogma and ritual

Now why do I know that and others don't. I would personally expect people remember that part. Go through 'Some evidence of a new satanic age' and relearn what you must have forgotten. Oh and maybe I shouldve said 'The satanist is atheistic' then you mightnt have had an issue

Satanism is technically a "religion". It all depends on your definition of the word.

Furthermore, Satanism does have dogma. Take, for instance, the uniform insistence among LaVeyan-related groups that Satan is not a literal physical deity. Even though there are certainly good reasons behind it, it is generally regarded as an immovable, absolute core tenet of what is often labeled "true Satanism".

Although, it is interesting to note that the root word of "dogma" literally means "opinion".

LaVey called Satanism variably a religion AND a philosophy with religious trappings. Dogma... yes. We have dogma, although not in the traditionally accepted sense of the word. Out insistence that man has his personal divinity, the Nine Satanic Statements, the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth and other touchstones of The Church of Satan are dogmatic, but not nearly so binding as those of other religious entities.

I could argue that LaVey's debateable usage of ritual magic is metaphysical. Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science- wiki

I also wouldnt say faith is a prerequisite for religion but even so, an Atheist cannot prove god doesnt exist therefore the Atheist has faith that god doesnt exist. A scientist can give evidence for their theory but ultimately cannot prove it to be correct so the rest is left to faith.

The last one is a bit of an extreme example but you get my point. Faith in oneself as the god of their own universe i guess is a principle of Satanism so that may count too.

Yes, and all religions share two things - the study and use of meta-physics, which Satanism does. And, all religion requires faith. So, what sort of things would a satanist have faith in?

I disagree. Either a religion doesn't by definition require faith, or a Satanism isn't a religion. Satanism is specifically opposed to faith and to hold faith in any of the teachings of Satanism is to accept them without critical examination as absolute truths, it's quite definitely missing the point.

_________________________If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Either a religion doesn't by definition require faith, or a Satanism isn't a religion. Satanism is specifically opposed to faith and to hold faith in any of the teachings of Satanism is to accept them without critical examination as absolute truths, it's quite definitely missing the point.

IMO, it is worth considering in these kinds of discussions the etymology of the word religion: "to bind" (qv. "ligament"). The word is thus associated with similar ideas to the word yoga - "to yoke". The general idea is that a religion must involve adherence (binding oneself) to some way of doing things.

I doubt any Satanist would agree that they ever strictly adhere to such dogma as Satanism possesses. They would not be Satanists if they did - the moment the dogma becomes the overriding concern, that is the moment when taking the role of adversary (Satan) against that dogma is most required.

This may be contrasted with other potentially atheistic identifications such as Buddhism, where there is a set of axiomatic truths (4 of them) that one adheres to believing are true, and a set of "corollary" behaviours (8 of them) that one adheres to observing. Hence, while Buddhism can be classified as a religion despite not requiring acts of worship, Satanism - which shares with Buddhism this lack of focus on imaginary friends - does not fit the bill.

Yes, and all religions share two things - the study and use of meta-physics, which Satanism does. And, all religion requires faith. So, what sort of things would a satanist have faith in?

And where did you find such an "accurate" definition for a religion ?

A religion to me would rather be a philosophy (a way of thinking, a vision of life, a group of dogmas, call it however you want) AND a ritual/ceremonial part. These truly are two things you find in every religion. LaVey added the ritual/ceremonial stuff to his vision of Satanism because he believed human beings needed it in their lives, as most of them were locked in religious traditions since they were young. Let's recall the SB came out in the 60's...

Satanism can be perceived as a religion OR a philosophy, depending on the way its adepts (one by one) live their lives. A Satanist who performs rituals will be seen as practicing a religion ; another one, like me, who just calls himself Satanist because he shares LaVey's vision, but without practicing any ritual, will more be seen as sharing a philosophy. Once again, LaVey's writings are just a wide guideline, if it was supposed to be more accurate and dictate us Satanists how to live, we would be in a mess, because the subjects LaVey deals with in his books and the important ones today are quite different...

All the more so... as for me, I call Satanism a religion. Many Satanists do. The ones who don't are still Satanists. Such details don't really matter to us... just like earlier in this topic, when you guys were talking about Satan : who really cares if Satan is a principle, an evil God, or a bunch of potatoes ? The only thing which matters in Satanism is : if you recognize yourself in the global vision, then you're in. If you don't, you're out. End of story.

And to answer your question, my friend, Satanists do have faith in something : themselves.

Satanism can be perceived as a religion OR a philosophy, depending on the way its adepts (one by one) live their lives. A Satanist who performs rituals will be seen as practicing a religion ; another one, like me, who just calls himself Satanist because he shares LaVey's vision, but without practicing any ritual, will more be seen as sharing a philosophy.

Magus Gilmore expounded on this in his 2005 Introduction to the paperback edition of The Satanic Bible:

"If it was only a philosophy, then such individualists might be welcome; it is more. Satanism has an aesthetic component, a system of symbolism, metaphor and ritual."

My experience from discussing such matters over at LTTD is that you tend to be given the cold shoulder if you use Satanism purely as a philosophy whilst shunning the ritual aspect. It seems that in order to be accepted that ritual is a vital ingredient.

I don't think Satanism has to be what anybody says it is ; what I did in my previous post was just expressing my opinion. Peter H. Gilmore has his own ; LaVey had his own. I disagree with LaVey on some subjects he deals with in his books. And I disagree with Gilmore on this one.

Satanism to me is what is expressed by the 3 basic lists LaVey wrote at the very beginning, before even writing the SB : the 9 sins, the 9 representations and the 11 rules. If you agree with it all, then you can call yourself a Satanist. All the rest is subjective. What LaVey did when he wrote essays (in SB, Devil's Notebook or Satan Speaks) was giving his opinion about some subjects, not saying what ANY Satanist should think about them. That's how I see things. LaVey isn't a guru : he defined Satanism (with the 3 lists), then gave us an example of what it means (with his essays).

It's probably a bit off-topic, but what I mean is that I'm not a sheep to anyone, even if this person is the founder or the Grand Manitou of any Satanist organization. I have my own understanding of what Satanism is (which I think is right), and according to it, I'm a Satanist. Even if I left the ritual part alone personally, I still call it a religion and know that satanic rituals are useful for those who use them (creating psychodrama and helping to sort things out in mind). I simply don't need it. I said I could be SEEN as making it a philosophy, not that I CALL it a philosophy

If being a Satanist meant HAVING TO practice rituals and HAVING TO prefer occult culture over any other culture, then I wouldn't call myself a Satanist and I wouldn't want to. I like occult culture, but I like many other things which don't belong to it.

Maybe some people will say I'm not a Satanist : fair enough. I believe in my opinions and unless you prove me wrong, I don't see any reason to change my mind

On top of that, I don't really like Gilmore's views. The Satanic Scriptures is a good book as it's the first one where actuality subjects are seen by a Satanist eye, but I think FSC is way closer to the true spirit of Satanism than CoS.

Sorry about double-posting ; edit function disappeared from my previous post since I wrote it yesterday.

Since that question was floating on my mind, I re-read parts of The Satanic Scriptures, and I guess I misunderstood what Gilmore meant. The point is, "do you understand the mechanics of Satanic rituals, whether you practice it or not ?", and not "do you practice rituals ?". In the last essay, he clearly says that a number of CoS members (which means people he considers Satanists himself) don't need rituals and can express their deep feelings by their everyday activities (arts, sports, whatever). So we totally agree on that point. I should have paid closer attention before judging his views

Whether you perceive Satanism as a religion or striclty a philosophy shouldn't matter. You essentially make it what you want. I mean, if you add dogma (rituals and the like) or don't it doesn't matter. It's whatever works for you. I think some (not all) satanists can't to entangled with what other satatnists are doing. They hear about what one person is doing and they think to themselves..."with all he is doing he makes me look like less of a satanist."

I corrected my speech because I misunderstood Gilmore's point of view and said I disagree, whereas I don't. So I wanted to make things clear, by respect. But I didn't change my own mind a bit.

That's one of the things I really like in Satanism. Two dudes sharing the same religion (or whatever you call it) can disagree on some point, and that's totally normal. You can't find it anywhere else.

"Dogmas" means the ritual/stuff part ? I thought it means the "rules" & principles of Satanism. I'd better work my English out a little more

While Satanism does have room for individual interpretations to a point. If you take away too much of the core structure of Satanism then your just left with nothing but another plain "ole" ism.

In saying that, too me you have to fit within certain perimeters to call yourself Satanist. While you do not have to fit them all, unless you fit most you cannot just change the perimeters to fit yourself and call it the same. As at this point it is clearly something different a new title is needed.

~T~

_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Of course, but to me nearly all of which was written by LaVey is just his own interpretation of the core philosophy, which consists of The Eleven Rules Of The Earth, The Nine Statements and The Nine Sins.

That's why you can still disagree with some of his points of view expressed in his essays, since you recognize yourself in these 3 basic texts, you can call yourself a Satanist. That's something that's worth being discussed, but however, here's my opinion, as I already explained it before